Overzealous America?

[Der-Ubermensch]

The events of September 11 seem to be the perfect excuse for an American venture into the Middle East. The intrusion is warranted to a certain degree, but it seems that the membership to the fabled "axis of evil" club is on the rise. Afghanistan, Irak, Iran, Syria; pretty much all of the Arab world and let's not neglect North Korea.

There's A LOT of anti-American sentiment brewing in that part of the world... Below is a source with quotes bearing witness to the fact.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/ne...0402/wl_nm/iraq_arabs_usa_dc_1

Are the United Steates on a spree of conquest and world political reform?

[bumcheekcity]

At 4/2/03 10:51 AM, Ruination wrote: The events of September 11 seem to be the perfect excuse for an American venture into the Middle East. The intrusion is warranted to a certain degree, but it seems that the membership to the fabled "axis of evil" club is on the rise. Afghanistan, Irak, Iran, Syria; pretty much all of the Arab world and let's not neglect North Korea.

Yer. they basicallly trying to keep themselves on top, power-wise, but they're wrong. Every empire that has ever fallen has been armed to the teeth.

Are the United Steates on a spree of conquest and world political reform?

Not quite, in my opinion. A spree definately. Of what, I dont know yet... We'll have to tune in tomorrow for episode two.

[BinLadenmustdie]

It's called having the balls and spine to enforce UN Resolution 1441, which was signed by all involved countries unanimously 15-0, including Syria.

[Der-Ubermensch]

At 4/2/03 02:54 PM, BinLadenmustdie wrote: It's called having the balls and spine to enforce UN Resolution 1441, which was signed by all involved countries unanimously 15-0, including Syria.

Resolution 1441 did not call for force, but "serious consequences" for a lack of cooperation.

[BinLadenmustdie]

If you didn't think "serious consequences" means compliance via force, then I've got some swamp land to sell ya.

The UN already slapped sanctions on them for 12 years and had inspectors in there 91-98 & 2003 and Saddam was still in material breach of all the resolutions, refusing to comply with all of them including 1441. He dragged his feet and threw them some crumbs to make it look like he was complying--everyone knows that was a charade. What do you think "serious consequences" meant? More inspectors is your penalty for non-compliance? Get real.

[Der-Ubermensch]

At 4/2/03 11:48 PM, BinLadenmustdie wrote: If you didn't think "serious consequences" means compliance via force, then I've got some swamp land to sell ya.

The UN already slapped sanctions on them for 12 years and had inspectors in there 91-98 & 2003 and Saddam was still in material breach of all the resolutions, refusing to comply with all of them including 1441. He dragged his feet and threw them some crumbs to make it look like he was complying--everyone knows that was a charade. What do you think "serious consequences" meant? More inspectors is your penalty for non-compliance? Get real.

The bottom line is that the resolution was passed by the UN and was meant to be enforced by it as well. Not at all by a few countries, under false pretences.

[BinLadenmustdie]

So what would be your idea of "serious consequences"?

[Der-Ubermensch]

At 4/3/03 12:08 AM, BinLadenmustdie wrote: So what would be your idea of "serious consequences"?

To tell you the truth, I'm not at all certain. It is true that the resolution's ultimatum was unclear, but it doesn't justify an all out war declared by a few member nations and not the whole.

[BinLadenmustdie]

Isn't it true that the only way Saddam was even giving up some of the Al Samoud (sp?) missiles is because the US had overwhelming force surrounding his country? The UN felt comfortable with the US offering the viable "threat" of war (i.e. "serious consequences) to get Saddam to begin complying (by their miniscule standards).

[NoNameProphet]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/articles/03/03/26_bad.html

^ Very interesting article. It's not really pro or anti war... I kinda had an opinion similar to it before I saw it. Yeah US put Saddam in but he's still a bad boy who needs to be removed, yet there's a lot of corrupt reasons beyond oil that US could play with while they're there... While I am not totally convinced to everything that this article says, it does strengthen my original thoughts further =P It's a scary thing to be true if it is.. heh...

Amd on a very loosely related note :

It's too bad that we don't just use fuel cells. Oil & Gas companies slowing those fuel cell dudes down... all that damn greedy capitalist money shit is destroying the planet, and ourselves along with it.

[NoNameProphet]

At 4/3/03 12:14 AM, Ruination wrote: it doesn't justify an all out war declared by a few member nations and not the whole.

The U.S. didn't seem to have enough evidence going into an all-out war yes. It was jsut suspicion. No one found a big fat nuke... but the world won't reem them that hard if they actually did find some heavy stuff, and not fabrications or god knows what.

Oh and those sanction that killed off millions of Iraqis and didn't impede Saddam at all (because he has outside sources and can hoard all he wants from his people).... that was pushed by US, not neccessarily the UN. And the "No-Fly-Zones" keeping those Kurds free was not agreed upon by the UN either. It was just imposed by Britian and the US acting alone again... they really enjoy doing that O.o...